In the days of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, there was the secular power Rome. There were also the religious classes of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. I see things today existing in similar fashion. Washington is so corrupt now that it seems to be approaching the heathenism of Rome. In the evangelical & fundamentalist classes today I see Pharisees. The mainline, anti-supernaturalists are the Sadducees of today.

The Sadducees of today are those who claim the Bible is man's writings about God rather than God's word to his people through the Prophets and NT writers. An example of our Sadducees of today is a statement in The New Interpreter's Study Bible. In the Introduction to 2 Peter it reads: "The letter claims authorship by the apostle Peter (1:1), but, even more emphatically than in the case of 1 Peter, most interpreters doubt that the apostle was the actual author." So, the author was an outright liar???

I understand that the Pharisees started with good intentions, striving to remain solidly biblical and orthodox; yet going too far by adding to God's word thinking they were assisting. They kept departing further from God's word and adding more and more traditions. The fundamentalists started with good intentions in the early 20th century, standing for biblical orthodoxy, but it appears to me that it has fallen victim to the same problem of the Pharisees of old, going too far and adding traditions as if it were biblical truth.

I am a 5-point Particular Baptist, believe in the regulative principle of worship, generally adhere to New Covenant theology and am post-mil. Add to this that I am an invert and it's quite hard or impossible to find a church family. (Check "invert" in the dictionary). For years I would not even knowingly consider a Southern Baptist, but months ago I attended a Baptist church that seemed to keep their SBC affiliation a secret and when I realized it, I was so fond of the Pastor I chose to continue, after a private chat with the Pastor, even though I was informed I could not ever be a member. I was okay with this until later this summer.

There was the uproar in Charlottesville over taking down the Lee statue and those of southern heritage and white extremists were there and antifa and BLM types were there on the other side. Having 2 ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, I consider myself a son of the Confederacy and I do not see the Bible teaching that slavery in itself is sin. If I were a younger man and still in Virginia, I would have been in Charlottesville to protest the attack on my heritage. Russell Moore is president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC. He stated that the whites protesting in Charlottesville were men of sin, or antichrists, all KKK types. Needless to say, that infuriated me and thinking my tithe was going into this SBC made it even worse. I was mulling this over when the SBC and other evangelicals came up with the Nashville Statement. While I agree with maybe 90% of that Statement, it was clearly all law, no gospel. It gave no answers or solutions to the problem, it only demanded what can't always be done. I now see these leaders and their type as Pharisees as in the following:

"They [Pharisees] tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them." (Matt 23:4, NRSV) I then see another sign of today's Pharisees -"Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." (Rom 2:1, NRSV) Examples: Ted Haggard, George A. Rekers

It's bad, forsaking the assembling together; but I have the option to resort to those where I found my most sound and helpful biblical guidance with this difficult and complex situation, the Puritans and those who followed after. Matthew Poole, John Gill, Thomas Brooks, etc. Strangely, I've found some good helps from Lutheran sources as well.

I guess I needed to just blow off steam in this post. This is certainly not a topic that would be suitable for discussion here... too emotional, a hot topic, too sensational in this day. But, if anyone does wish to comment or ask me a question, feel free to send me a Private Message and I'll reply in the Christian spirit, honestly and clearly as possible. I apologize for the length of the post.

I had not planned to post again, but I wished to comment on this post. I was rather surprised, that after 72 views, there was just one PM that has come to me from this post. But, I will say, the PM I did receive was in such a kind Christian spirit that was/is willing to try and understand the situation of a truly regenerate child of God, who finds his inherent sexual nature to be homosexual. In this day of LGBTQ activism on the extreme left, and homophobia on the extreme right, it is quite a spiritual journey to say the least, with a lot of pitfalls.

1. At the current time, LGBTQ has been expanded to LGBTTTQQIAA... with the proviso that it will most definitely be expanded to include other forms of deviant, unbiblical behavior.

2. I'm surprised that you received even one PM on your professed homosexuality. At least in the US and Canada, to speak in any way that is negatively phrased in regard to LGBTTTQQIAA, is unacceptable and particularly in Canada you could be charged with a hate crime, prosecuted, fined and even jailed according to federal law.

3. Please explain, "inherent sexual nature to be homosexual".

4. Please exegete the following passage:

Quote

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (ASV) "Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."

I had not planned to post again, but I wished to comment on this post. I was rather surprised, that after 72 views, there was just one PM that has come to me from this post. But, I will say, the PM I did receive was in such a kind Christian spirit that was/is willing to try and understand the situation of a truly regenerate child of God, who finds his inherent sexual nature to be homosexual. In this day of LGBTQ activism on the extreme left, and homophobia on the extreme right, it is quite a spiritual journey to say the least, with a lot of pitfalls.

You are posting here, I'm not looking to chase you away.... I think there are some who have different inclinations..... I would like to see you overcome them, not accept or embrace them.... All I know is my indwelling sin hits right at my core..... Id like to hear about some of your life experiences that led you to this point, in all areas of life

Of course I did not pm you and have been an avid blogger condemning ssm and even ssa but calling for sensitivity TOWARD the struggler

I describe homosexual orientation as psychology defines it, since it is a word in psychology, it is not found in the Bible. Just notice how the NKJV and NASB are eager to put "homosexuals" in 1 Cor.6:9 but disagree on what word should be thus translated. I had not planned to post any more because it always degenerates into nothing but heat and raw emotions. But, I handle Rom. 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10 together since all by Paul. But, I will paste my notes on 1 Cor. 6:9 -

The most accurate translation in today's language I believe is by Reverend Arthur Marshall in the NIV/Grk-Eng Interlinear, with the literal rendering:

"Or know ye not that unrighteous men will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Be not led astray; not fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor voluptuous persons nor sodomites,"

Has the historical translation of malakos referred to sexual acts with the word "effeminate"? No!

"effeminate1. having the qualities generally attributed to women, as weakness, timidity, delicacy, etc.; unmanly; not virile2. characterized by such qualities; weak; soft, decadent, etc.: effeminate art"Websters New World College Dictionary

"effeminate1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous." the 1828 Websters English Dictionary

The New Jerusalem Bible translates malakos as "the self-indulgent".

The BDAG defines malakos thus: "being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship, opp. &#7936;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#943;&#964;&#951;&#962;"

But, Heinrich Meyer, a 19th century evangelical (Lutheran) German Greek scholar states:"&#956;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#954;&#959;&#943;] effeminates, commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur, but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites (molles) were called &#960;&#972;&#961;&#957;&#959;&#953; or &#954;&#943;&#957;&#945;&#953;&#948;&#959;&#953;. One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers."https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hmc/1-corinthians-6.html

These two Greek authorities disagree but I find Meyer to have the best reasoning. Why would Paul use malakos figuratively, meaning a 'catamite', when the Greek had the exact word for a 'catamite'. The only other uses of malakos in the NT are twice in Matt. 11:8 and once in Luke 7:25 and those 3 occurrences refer solely to soft, luxurious clothing. I cannot believe God the Holy Spirit had Paul use malakos to mean 'catamite' here in 1 Cor. 6:9 when all the other references in the NT refer to soft, luxurious clothing and the Greek had the exact word for 'catamite' that Paul could have used. For centuries, malakos, starting with the Vulgate, up through the Douay, the KJV and ASV; the word "effeminate" was the translation. The first translation to translate the word malakos in the sense of 'catamite' and joined to arsenokoites as "homosexuals" was the first Edition of the RSV NT in 1946. In the RSV Revision, the word "homosexuals" was changed to "sexual perverts". It appears as though the obsession with homosexuality in this modern era has caused a bias in the minds of the translators, reading back into the Bible modern words and concepts not found in the biblical Hebrew and Greek.

This leaves the Greek arsenokoites, "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the KJV and then "sodomites" in the NRSV, YLT and the Interlinear I quoted above, along with other versions. It is a very difficult word and a lot of variance in the views of the meaning. In Principles of Interpretation, page 123 is this statement: "RULE: The meaning of a rare word, not decided by usage, should be sought first in the etymology, then in early versions, and lastly in kindred tongues."

I believe it is Bernard Ramm who warns that the etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning. That is generally true, but if we are studying the one who coined the word from two other words, as Paul did by joining G730 &#7940;&#961;&#963;&#951;&#957; arsen (male) to G2845 &#954;&#959;&#8055;&#964;&#951; koite (bed or couch) etymology is important. The occurrence of the word in the NT is the first known use of the word so Paul is thought to have coined it. The word koite in Heb. 13:4 stands for the marriage bed, morally honorable. In Rom. 9:10 it stands for conception. So, it has a sexual meaning and in these two cases it is moral. Yet we find the word used in a vice list in the following:

"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying." (Rom 13:13, KJV)

Here koite is rendered "chambering", which is quite suggestive since it means men bed-hopping, promiscuity. The 19th century Methodist Adam Clarke in his commentary states on this word: "This is no legitimate word, and conveys no sense till, from its connection in this place, we force a meaning upon it. The original word, &#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#945;&#953;&#962;, signifies whoredoms and prostitution of every kind."https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/romans-13.html

When the word has "male" prefixed to it and in a vice list, is it sin as in Rom. 13:13, or is it sin just because it has "male" attached to it? To me it seems that male to male sex in 1 Cor. 6:9 is the same as what Adam Clarke described as the male-female sin. While the passage in 1 Cor. 6 has no real category or structure so we can get an idea from word association of the meaning, Paul uses arsenokoites once more where we do get an idea from word associations. In 1 Tim. 1:9, 10 KJV we find the sins by category:

There the word is sandwiched between "whoremongers" and "menstealers" or slave traders. The meaning of this word now is more clear, an abusive, dominating and promiscuous male. The description of Nero's perversion comes to mind again. Paul wrote in the day of Nero, the pervert and I believe the type of conduct in Nero is what Paul had in mind. It surely fits Paul's descriptions. You can read 3 paragraphs of Nero's conduct here:

This is how I understand 1 Cor. 6:9 about the words in question; but it is better when seen in the context of all 3 of Paul's references. But, I'm not in the mood to debate this. I was more interested in civil, Christian discussion. I believe I will add a quote from a theologian on this problem:

One of the early discussions of homosexuality in Christian ethics, was by the German theologian Helmut Thielicke in his 1964 book, "The Ethics of Sex". The first statement he makes at the beginning of the chapter on homosexuality is as follows:

"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent." page 269 and also...

"Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenonemon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 270

AGAINST HETEROSEXUALITYby Michael W. HannonMarch 2014Alasdair MacIntyre once quipped that “facts, like telescopes and wigs for gentlemen, were a seventeenth-century invention.” Something similar can be said about sexual orientation: Heterosexuals, like typewriters and urinals (also, obviously, for gentlemen), were an invention of the 1860s. Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes. Sexual orientation is a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that. It is a history that began far more recently than most people know, and it is one that will likely end much sooner than most people think.

Over the course of several centuries, the West had progressively abandoned Christianity’s marital architecture for human sexuality. Then, about one hundred and fifty years ago, it began to replace that longstanding teleological tradition with a brand new creation: the absolutist but absurd taxonomy of sexual orientations. Heterosexuality was made to serve as this fanciful framework’s regulating ideal, preserving the social prohibitions against sodomy and other sexual debaucheries without requiring recourse to the procreative nature of human sexuality.

On this novel account, same-sex sex acts were wrong not because they spurn the rational-animal purpose of sex—namely the family—but rather because the desire for these actions allegedly arises from a distasteful psychological disorder.

No debate here........ All that you provided is what many other homosexuals have used to sanction their behavior and relegate it as acceptable, albeit societies throughout the world for centuries (with exceptions of course) and historic Christianity reject it as sin. We are exposed to this sin against nature itself from the near beginning of Scripture in Gen 13:13; 18:20; and the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah revealed 19:5-9. Sodom is used repeatedly throughout Scripture to refer to the unnatural act of men having sexual relationships with other, and likewise for women Isa 1:9, 3:9; Deut 32:32; Lam 4:6.

sod'-om-it (qadhesh, feminine qedheshah): Qadhesh denotes properly a male temple prostitute, one of the class attached to certain sanctuaries of heathen deities, and "consecrated" to the impure rites of their worship. Such gross and degrading practices in Yahweh's land could only be construed as a flagrant outrage; and any association of these with His pure worship was abhorrent (Ezr 2:50 f): The presence of Sodomites is noted as a mark of degeneracy in Rehoboam's time (1Ki 15:25). Asa endeavored to get rid of them (1Ki 16:10), and Jehoshaphat routed them out (1Ki 22:46). Subsequent corruptions opened the way for their return, and Josiah had to break down their houses which were actually "in the house of the Lord" (2Ki 23:7). The feminine qedheshah is translated "prostitute" in Ge 38:21-22; Ho 4:14; in Ezr 2:50 "prostitute" (the King James Version margin "sodomitess," the Revised Version margin transliterates). The English word is, of course, derived from Sodom, the inhabitants of which were in evil repute for unnatural vice.

Paul makes plain that homosexuality is an abomination for it is a sin against nature itself which God allowed due to the blasphemy of idolatry cf. Rom 1:18-32. There is NO "theological problem" in regard to homosexuality, transgenderism, transvestism, pedophilia, lesbianism, and any other sexual practice which is outside the bond of marriage, i.e., a man and a woman.

In regard to malakos BAG (489 D 2) says, "of pers. soft, effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually." and at the end, it references 1Cor 6:9, interestingly enough.

Thus, the bottom line is simply this...... "Christian" and "Homosexual" are antithetical. The Bible nowhere condones any such behavior, but rather it condemns it and the wrath of God is upon all who not only practice homosexuality or any deviant sexual act but who give consent to such behavior (Rom 1:32). I brought up 1Cor 6:9 not simply to show that homosexuals and all sexual deviants will be cast into hell, as is clear from the text, but Paul glories over those in Corinth who had been to repentance and true faith in Christ through the Spirit, for he writes in vs 11: (ASV) "And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." My emphasis of the word "were" is most important for it is in the aorist tense, i.e., it is a "done deal", i.e., those who were homosexuals along with all the other types of sins committed among the people of Corinth were no longer guilty of such sins because God the Spirit had given them a new nature which first brought deep guilt upon them and the desire to repent of those sins. That repentance was accompanied by a true living faith that resulted in union with Christ. Consequently, their lives changed dramatically (sanctified) due to their justification in Him. God's wrath was no longer upon them, but to the contrary, they were adopted as sons into the kingdom of God himself. This is what it means to be saved, delivered, redeemed, etc. No one can claim to be a Christian and willfully live in sin. May God give you the ability to see these things, convict your soul deeply and grant you repentance unto life through faith in the LORD Christ.

Hello Pilgrim, I'll address just one important point you made, and it is critical when discussing a male who loves males exclusively. Your quote "BAG (109 B) 'a male homosexual, pederest, sodomite'" is apparently the 2nd Edition of the BAGD, but it was corrected in the 3rd Edition, 2000 BDAG and it reads on arsenokoites - "a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9". The error of the first Edition of the RSV, which used "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6:9 has been corrected. The RSV 2nd Edition and the NRSV as well as the UK REB also avoid the word "homosexuals" and for very good reason as seen in the following:

Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, 2000 Edition: "The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek." page 602

Speaking of equivalency, notice: Principles of Interpretation, 1915 Ed. by Clinton Lockhart: "If a translation be used, it must be an exact equivalent of the original, or the difference must be noted by the interpreter." page 49

Many think "sodomy" and "sodomite" are the biblical equivalent of "homosexuality" and "homosexual", but that is in error also; the words being coined by the Roman Catholic Church:

And Anthony, if I understood your quote, I'd agree that these are man made labels or terms. It is better to drop the labels that are not biblical and examine passages to see exactly what is being condemned. Imagine if every m-f sexual sin in Scripture was merely labeled "heterosexuality" or "heterosexuals".

Pilgrim, I understand you are the head man here, so I have a proposal for you. I know from personal experience the heart ache, the heart break, when a son comes to the Christian parents and says, "I'm gay". With your 'ok', I'd like to start a Post on this subject, and we can handle the discussion in a civil and Christ-like manner. The Christmas and New Year's Holidays are a hectic busy time, so maybe after the first of the year? I'm sure I can stay civil and in a Christian spirit, if you don't 'needle' me. ;-)

I could be mistakened but it doesn't seem like the bible speaks to lawful sexual pleasure or relations with the exception of the marriage bed.... Except that it's better to marry than burn ..... The whole sexual preference and identification phenomenon is not lawful or legitimate outside a complete rejection of Christ (in Whom all sin is removed unto perfection, righteousness and holiness if we are indeed in Him and Him in us)....

It seems what you are trying to do, but without any logical reason which I have been privy to for several years on many fronts, is to legitimize homosexuality, i.e., to suggest that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. IF my understanding is correct, and that has been admitted by myriad homosexuals with whom I have dialoged with, then I do stand immovable in opposing any such notion. Semantic gymnastics is not a valid argument. Homosexuality is an accurate term, regardless of its origin to describe same sex attraction and sexual intimacy. Sodomy is a valid synonym for homosexuality. All one needs do is consult the biblical references I provided to show the truth of this. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to their homosexual practices:

Quote

Genesis 13:13 (ASV) "Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against Jehovah exceedingly."

Genesis 19:4-8 (ASV) "But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. And he said, I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing, forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof."

The people of Sodom demanded Lot turn over to them the two men/angels in order that they may KNOW them. The meaning is indisputable that they desired to have sexual relations with these men as the emphasized parts are perspicuous. The use of the word know is used many times in Scripture to denote sexual intimacy, e.g., Gen. 4:1. And, as I have shown above, the word "Sodomy" is used consistently to refer to the abomination practiced in Sodom and Gomorrah, i.e., homosexuality/sodomy.

ALL sexual relations outside of the marriage between a man and a woman are condemned in Scripture. In fact, just desiring (lust) of another person outside of marriage is condemned in Scripture (Matt 5:7,8). And please don't try and escape the prohibition taught by Christ in that passage by suggesting that it only applies to men who lust after women. The text universally prohibits and condemns ALL lust outside of heterosexual marriage.

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the N.T. as well:

Quote

Romans 1:22-32 (ASV) "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. And even as they refused to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them."

To repeat... one can use whatever term they choose to describe the vile acts which Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote in the above passage. What cannot be denied is that homosexuality, sodomy, lesbianism, same sex attraction and same sex sexual acts are condemned by God. These acts were allowed to be committed as just temporal punishment for fallen man's rejection of the biblical God, aka: idolatry. And the LGBTTTQQIAA has consistently insisted that God loves homosexuals which is a direct contradiction of the above text and displays the idolatry which Paul wrote about. To quote an old Puritan which exemplifies this type of depraved thinking, "In the beginning, God created man in His own image and ever since the Fall, man has been trying to return the favor." Fallen man always fabricates a "god" that accepts their sinfulness and calls it "good".

One of the things I believe is very important in a discussion of this nature is to remember to call sin sin.I can stand beside someone who is fighting against a particular sin such as homosexuality. However, I can not and will not stand beside someone who does not confess their sin and makes excuses for it.I know people who deap down know it is a sin, yet found people who interpret Scripture in a way that excuses their sin.They now have even marched in a gay pride parade and told others that God is ok with it.Tom

Paul in Romans 3 deals with the matter of judgment upon those who have the law and those who have never had the law (never heard of it) with a very interesting comment wedged between:

Quote

Romans 2:12-16 (ASV) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing [them]); in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ."

It makes not a wit of difference whether someone admits that God's law condemns their sinful act(s) for they are still under the law and the just judgment for transgressing it for God has written the law upon their heart, having been created in the image of God. It's like someone rejecting any idea that there is such a thing called 'gravity'. The fact is, gravity exists as it was created by the very word of God. And if the one who refuses to acknowledge gravity should walk off a cliff, they will suffer the consequences of that foolish act.

"Now the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD." (Gen 13:13, NRSV) The KJV reads "men" and the NRSV is "people" no reference to males here. Men is plural of man which means people, humans, mankind unless the context shows otherwise, the Hebrew being enowsh. The difference can be seen in the following: "And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male(zakar) among the men(enowsh) of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him." (Gen 17:23, KJV)

"But before they lay down, the men(people) of the city, even the men(people) of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the peoplefrom every quarter" (Gen 19:4, KJV)

The same word here for "men", Hebrew enowsh, the context of the verse shows clearly this was not just about males. But, even if it were only the males, what happened? According to God's word, this is what happened:

"And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. (Gen 19:9, KJV) The word "brethren" in v7 is a very broad word not specifically "males": "brethren" used chiefly in formal or solemn address or in referring to the members of a profession, society, or religious denomination - our church brethren" Merriam-Webster online

That is clearly attempted rape by the entire people upon the presumed to be young men. If you don't think women can rape also, just read the daily paper. Now, if rape or attempted rape of male on female does not condemn all male-female relations in and of itself, neither does male on male rape condemn males who love males. Rape is a sin of violence, domination not love. But, the Lord GOD told us what the sin of Sodom was, and it was not listed as sexual:

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50, KJV)

Before reading homosexuality into the word "abomination", check how the word is used in Ezekiel. It is the Hebrew to ebah and it is found approximately 41 times in Ezekiel, the most of any OT book. But, trace the word through Ezekiel and it seems to mainly indicate things connected to idolatry as v36 of this very chapter shows:

"Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them" (Ezek 16:36, KJV)

We can see from a book of history how the Jews of about 180BC viewed the sin of Sodom: "He did not spare the neighbors of Lot, whom he loathed on account of their arrogance. (Sirach 16:8 NRSVA)

It appears as if everyone answering here is content to read into the Scriptures their own bias and prejudice rather than let the word of God speak for itself. Did I violate a rule of hermeneutics here? Did I define a word improperly? If one uses proof texting, you need to understand exactly what each proof text means before stringing them together in an attempt to support a belief. The Roman Catholic Church, in its arrogance, contradicted the Lord GOD, and created a sin called "sodomy" based on the city of Sodom, and their twisting of the account. Try finding a sin called "sodomy" in any English version of Scripture, I've yet to find one. Even the KJV "sodomites" refers to idolatrous male cult prostitutes, not males who love males. Compare the following:

"None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the LORD your God." (Deut 23:17-18, NRSV)

If being a male temple prostitute condemns male to male love; then being a female temple prostitute would condemn male-female love.

I don't see that this discussion will go anywhere. If anyone, I mean anyone, has a relative, close friend, any Christian who needs to understand what the Bible says and does not say about the psychological concept called homosexuality, feel free to PM me and I'll try to help. I'm 75 and have studied this topic in depth, it is my spiritual welfare at stake here so I've dedicated a lot of sincere study on it.

2. Words derive their specific meaning from the CONTEXT, both near and far, but specifically in the passage in which they are found. Thus "men" in the context of Gen 13:13 is probably best taken as a collective, which simply means ALL in Sodom were wicked people, whether they engaged in homosexual behavior or condoned it. In either case, Paul in Romans 1 includes ALL who either engage in same sex sexual acts and those who condone it.

3. In Gen 19:4 "men" must be taken as males for they are distinguished from the wider inclusion of "all the people". Then, those who were Lot's guests are referred to as "men", without question meaning the "males" who were inside the house, which is most definitely proven to be true when Lot offered his daughters "female" as their substitute in vs. 8.

4. It is sad that you will use whatever translation you think supports your erroneous claim that nowhere does the Bible condemn same sex attraction or same sex sexual deviancy. I have already provided two specific passages which incontrovertibly teach that God abhors same sex relationships which are reserved for heterosexual marriage partners. The law given to Israel condemns any such practice. The NT confirms the condemnation of such relationships and practices in the Epistles and even heterosexual sex outside of marriage. God created man (mankind) as male and female. And when Adam was created, God said it was not good that the man (Adam as representative of all males as well as mankind) be alone and thus created a woman (Eve as representative of all females) for him. God did not create another man (male) for Adam. And historically, the Church has been unified in condemning any form of extra-marital sex and specifically homosexuality long before modern godless psychology came into being. It is only in the last 50 years +/- that this entire matter of accepting deviant behavior became an issue.

5. God condemns all sin and those who refuse to repent of sin and seek God's mercy and grace in Christ will be cast into hell. Same sex romantic affections, same sex romantic relationships and same sex sexual acts are clearly sin. It is at best an oxymoron to claim to be a Christian homosexual.

6. FYI, I am not homophobic, for I do not fear homosexuals. In fact, I bring the Gospel to homosexuals perchance God will grant them repentance of their sinfulness and bring them to Christ with a true living faith in whom they can be delivered... no more nor no less than any other sinner who stands in dire need of salvation.

7. Twisting the Scripture to find justification for your sin is nothing more than sophisty. I for one will not tolerate it. And further, I will NOT permit you to promulgate your sin using the PM system on this Board. To do so will immediately result in your permanent expulsion. Those who are wanting to converse with you may certainly do so via e-mail of which I am not responsible. I will assume that I have made myself clear...... yes?

Rom.1:18-32 is a narrative of man's rejection of the one true God and thinking himself wise, creates idols in exchange for the One True God. These are God rejecting people, idolaters, who are proud of their own perceived intellect and wisdom. Their continued descent into deeper and deeper depravity is 3 times attributed to "God gave them up" in vs 24,26,28 and all three times the cause or reason reflects back to their ultimate sin of rejecting God and turning to idols. The flow of thought goes back to their rejection of the One True God and exchanging Him with idols.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Rom 1:26-27, KJV)

If under a. above "the natural use" the definite article 'the' points back to the created design and order. But under b. "their natural sexual function" would indicate that by their nature, their own sexual nature, these women would have the created order orientation within themselves, but could only change their conduct. Sexual orientation is not changeable.

3. It is common to teach that v26 refers to lesbianism, but that violates the directive of 1 Cor. 4:6 ASV, "learn not to go beyond the things which are written". There is nothing here stating women had sex with women. As the English Baptist John Gill wrote in the 18th century, one understanding can be: "by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the 'sodomitical' embraces of men, in a way that is against nature". This would probably refer to oral and anal intercourse of women with men. From this viewpoint, the word "likewise" connecting v27 to v26 also refers to oral and anal intercourse of man with man, unnatural compared to the created order, but created order does not define sin, God's commands do. Of course, if lesbianism is not 'read into' the words of Scripture here, there is zero reference in the Bible to lesbianism!4. In v27 men are "leaving" (KJV), "giving up" (NRSV), "having left" (YLT), "forsaking" (Literal translation by Jay P. Green). You cannot leave, give up and forsake that which you did not possess in the first place, and a male of same-sex orientation has not had the relationship to/for a woman from which to leave. This has been observed in the church as early as St. John Chrysostom (349-407AD) when he wrote in his homily on Romans:

"...he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that 'they changed the natural use.' For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, 'They changed the truth of God for a lie.' And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, 'Leaving the natural use of the woman.' And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature."http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary was printed about 1872 long before the words and concept were invented. On Rom. 1:26,27 it reads:

"But observe how vice is here seen consuming and exhausting itself. When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural and monstrous vices." It does not take much grey matter to know what modern words we'd use for "natural vices" and "unnatural and monstrous vices".

"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."

5. The KJV word "burned" in v27 is the Greek, "G1572" and is found only here in the NT, just this one occurrence. A. T. Robertson says it means "to burn out, to set on fire". The NRSV renders it "consumed". From a 19th century Greek scholar, James Robinson Boise, "a much stronger word than the Eng. burned". This is important because the word used for sexual desire translated "burn" referring to a loving couple is totally different: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9, KJV) The word "burn" here is the Greek: "G4448" a totally unrelated word to that in Rom. 1:27.6. The KJV word "lust" here is also an instance where this is the only occurrence in the entire NT Greek, "G3715". The words "burned in their lust" KJV, or "consumed with passion" NRSV; indicates something extreme, not to be compared with normal love, affection or even a close M-M friendship which may include some sexual desire considering that sexual orientation is a continuum, not a neat hetero-, bi- or homosexual construct of human sexuality. The word "lust" here is totally unrelated to the Greek lust in Matt. 5:27, which is "G1937"!7. The KJV words "working that which is unseemly" in the literal Greek reads "working the unseemliness", Rev. Alford Marshall in the NIV/Grk-Eng Interlinear. The Greek scholar, Boice, I referenced above writes: "the (well-known, notorious) indecency". The sexual perversions of Nero, who lived at the time Paul wrote, comes to mind. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/suet-nero.asp READ THIS HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF NERO AND COMPARE TO HERE8. What is the "error" meant in "receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet"? From the flow of the entire passage from v18, it would seem to refer to the rejection of the One True God and worshiping idols. The moral degradation described is the horrible descent into the depths of depravity which was sin compounding upon sin, as punishment. Again, Boice in the 19th century writes: "of their error, of their departure (from the true God)". The respected 19th century theologian, Presbyterian Charles Hodge states in his commentary on Romans: "The apostle for the third time repeats the idea that the moral degradation of the heathen was a punishment of their apostasy from God. Receiving, he says, in themselves the meet recompense of their error. It is obvious from the whole context that the Greek here refers to the sin of forsaking the true God; and it is no less obvious that the recompense or punishment of this apostasy was the moral degradation which he had just described." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hdg/romans-1.html

Then the 2000 Edition of the BDAG reads: "Of an erroneous view of God, as exhibited in polytheism, resulting in moral degradation ... Ro 1:27" Yet in this day it is common to dogmatically insist the "error" is homosexuality and the "recompense" is something like AIDS.

The sin, the error, of this passage is exchanging the One True God for idols and self-worship which brings about degradation upon degradation to where their outrageous and extreme lust consumes them. Studying 1 Cor. 6:9 and Rom. 1:26, 27 objectively comes up describing the type of behavior of Nero, referenced above. Nothing in the entire Bible condemns two males loving each other faithfully including sexual intimacy. You can invent all the theological constructions you wish, but the Bible does not condemn men loving men. By the way, did you ever notice how men seem to focus solely on vs26,27 and totally ignore the 'little sins' contained in vs29, 30 as worthy of death?!